What can be done to support meaningful and inclusive disarmament outcomes when the consensus principle remains fundamental to multilateral disarmament negotiations?

 

UNODA Occasional Papers, No. 47, February 2026 -


The norm of consensus decision-making in multilateral disarmament is well established, even though the rules for applying consensus have varied and evolved across forums, processes and types of decisions.

 In practice, consensus is often treated as the default approach even where rules provide for voting. Consensus-based outcomes are therefore likely to remain a defining feature of multilateral disarmament negotiations, insofar as they are widely viewed as conferring legitimacy and universality. Despite innovations in how consensus has been interpreted and applied across disarmament and arms control processes, the principle can be expected to endure. The prevailing view that international security questions require consensus is likely to persist, given that such matters strike at the core of State security. At the same time, the tendency to treat consensus as de facto veto power has encouraged the pursuit of creative and adaptable alternatives rather than a strict, uniform application of the norm. In this regard, it is worth considering how the specific context of each process and subject area may warrant greater nuance in how consensus is understood and operationalized. What, then, can be done to support meaningful and inclusive disarmament outcomes when the consensus principle remains fundamental to multilateral disarmament negotiations?

 • Treating consensus as a binary, zero-sum proposition has been a hindrance to substantive progress. It is therefore critical to create space for States to reflect on how consensus has evolved and been implemented over time across different issue areas, taking into account both its benefits and challenges. The elasticity of the norm can be a strength, and States should continue to support and explore its evolution through dedicated discussions of the disarmament machinery, as well as through forum-specific exchanges. In the current period of heightened strain on multilateralism, it is also important to recognize consensus as a practical instrument for bridging established approaches and emerging expectations. 

• Given the particular importance that many States attach to consensus on matters of direct relevance to national security, States could consider whether consensus should apply equally to substantive and procedural decisions, insofar as these can be meaningfully distinguished. In some cases, applying consensus only to substantive outcomes may be an option worthy of attention. States might also consider differentiating between “tiers” of substance — for example, requiring consensus for outcomes that entail tangible national implementation, while allowing a lower threshold for political declarations or similar instruments. Such approaches are particularly relevant where procedural differences are used to block the commencement of substantive discussions altogether. Similarly, where dissociation is contemplated, it may be useful to distinguish between elements that are fundamental to the subject matter at hand and those more tangential in nature. 

• While consensus outcomes may carry heightened legitimacy, outcomes with broad majority support should also be viewed positively and, in some cases, may be worth pursuing — particularly where the price of consensus is a “lowest common denominator” result. This dynamic is often reflected in majority adopted General Assembly resolutions that attract negative votes from only a small number of States. In assessing overall support for a proposal, the level and pattern of abstention should also be considered

Location: 405 E 45th St, New York, NY 10017, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A hazard to human rights: autonomous weapons systems and digital decision-making.

Image
Featuring a presentation of a new report by Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic, and speakers from Stop Killer Robots , Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the International Committee of the Red Cross, this side event will examine the human rights implications of autonomous weapons systems and the urgent need for a legally binding instrument containing prohibitions on both antipersonnel systems and systems that do not allow for meaningful human control , alongside other regulations to govern the design, development, and use of other autonomous weapons systems . The side event will additionally explore examples and impacts of component technologies such as remote biometric surveillance and predictive tools, already in use, and the implications of their use within autonomous weapons systems on human rights . Watch a hazard to human rights: autonomous weapons systems and digital decision-making!
Read more

(3rd plenary meeting) Third Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Image
Adopted in 2017 and having entered into force in 2020, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons includes a comprehensive set of prohibitions on participating in any nuclear weapon activities, as well as positive obligations related, inter alia, to victim and affected communities. The third Meeting of States will bring together States Parties and observers, including governments, international organizations and civil society. The third Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons will be held at United Nations Headquarters in New York from 3 to 7 March 2025 Watch the (3rd plenary meeting) Third Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons!
Read more

What is an arms broker and what are arms brokering activities?

Image
Brokers can play an important role in facilitating or acting as intermediaries in the legitimate conventional arms trade . The phenomenon of individuals and companies facilitating and arranging arms deals between states and between states and arms producers – for example, bringing sellers and buyers together – is not new. However, since the 1990s, and particularly in conflicts in Angola and West Africa, high-profile cases and popular culture have raised greater awareness of arms brokering . This applies in particular to the way in which some unscrupulous brokers are actively engaged in the diversion and illicit trade inconventional arms , including small arms and light weapons (SALW) , and ammunition to or between unauthorized (end-) users – including criminals, pirates, non-state armed groups (NSAGs) and groups listed as terrorist groups  and their procurement networks. The fact that such entities were not explicitly controlled or regulated by modern transfer control systems...
Read more